Now, Aslidod’s inhabitants were PLSTi-im Even as late as Nehemiah, b. o. 620 40
they had preserved their own tongue in Palestine. What more natural, what otherwise
possible, than that an “ affiliation of the KSAiLouKAs” should have spoken in
some dialect of Berber ?
KSAiLouKAs, in Xth Genesis, are offshoots of the MTsRiics. Hear Qua-
trembre “ Quant à ce qui concerne Tinfluenoe de la langue Égyptienne sur celles des
Philistins, nous en trouvons un vestige remarquable. Il existait, sur le rivage de la
mer Méditerranée, un lieu situé à peu de distance de la-ville de Gaza, dont il formait
le port. Ce lieu était nommé Maïuma. Comme il avait acquis une grande importance
il fut, sous le régne des empereurs de Constantinople, séparé de l’évêché de Gaza, et
devint un siège épiscopal distinct. Ce nom, dont M. Hitzig a oherché l’étymolo’gie
dans la langue Sanscrite, appartient indubitablèment à la langue de l’Égypte. En
retranchant la terminaison grecque, il se composa du mot [Coptic and hieroglyphic]
MA lieu et de IOM mer. Cette denomination, qui désigne un lieu maritime, convient
parfaitement à un port de mer and establishes the Samitic vernacular of the people
who named it. , Who can these people have been but the Philistines who built Gaza?
Another consideration. We have seen that Gætulian races, descendants of KAaM,
dark, are “ gentes subfusci coloris and also that to half the population of the oasis
of Ammon, who were not Egyptians, Herodotus gives the usual Greek name of "sm-
bumed-faces.” Emigrants from such stock into Palestine were therefore physiologi-
cally swarthy ; and such were the PTSTMm who founded Joppa, settling, along the
coast from the Suez Isthmus to Mt. Carmel. Now, as Raoul Rochette has skilfully
established, early Greek writers placed the coelo-piscine adventure of “ Perseus and
Andromeda ” at Joppa ; “ among the AErai-OPi'an«,” inhabitants of that city iff Phi-
listia. Had the PLSTi-im not been, like all Berbers, of the swarthy race, Joppa would
not have been included in Æthiopia, “ land of bumt-faces." •
Sufficient has been said on the PLSTMm to show that the traditions collected in Xth
Genesis accurately ascribe the’se peoples’ origins to Barhdry. To.reject this deduction
is to deny the validity of Xth Genesis, backed as it is by every historical desideratum;
without reserving a shadow upon which contrary hypotheses have been erected through
imaginary Sanserif analogies that possess, anthropologically speaking, about as much
relation to a man of Philistia, as to “ the man in the moon.”
“ If, (says Quatremère) as I have attempted to establish, the Philistines were originally
of the west of Africa, it is probable that their idiom, primitively, belonged to
that speech, improperly termed Berber, which iiTspoken even to-day in northern Africa,
from Egypt to the shores of the Atlantic ocean. One may believe that, during their
domination (?) in Egypt, the Philistines forgot their own language to adopt that of this
country, or made of the two idioms a barbarous mixture. When they were established
in Palestine, seeing themselves surrounded by nations that spoke the Semitic dialects,
and with whom they had daily relations, either as friends, or as enemies, they must
have still more achieved modifications or corruptions of their lingua propria."
Through the “ Annals of Thotmes HI,” a most scientific paper which reaches us
while correcting these pages, the antiquity of the Philistines can now be carried back
to the sixteenth century b . c. Describing the hieroglyphical records of that Pharaoh,
Birch reveals how there took place “ another campaign against the fortress Of Àranatu,
that of Kanana, and .the land of Tunep ; Kadesh was once more attacked, and the
campaign extended to Naharaina or Mesopotamia. The Tanai, a Philistine tribe who
were conquered by Ramses III, the P aiu sa ta or Philistines, and the Gakhil or Gali-
Iseans, also contributed to the rent-roll, and the ‘ silver jug the work of the Kevau’
refers to the celebrated metallic works of the Cyprians.” Here the reader will recognize
various geographical and ethnic names already mentioned in our present disquisition.
Mr. Birch’s surpassingly-great essay will show him many jn ore.
And this is-all we have to say on “ P-OLISîTE-raoe and w om e n ; e x c e p t that
orthodox Hebrew dictionaries propose, by way of explanation, « P h il is t in e s , those
that dwell in villages I ” 61?
34. DHflSO — KPATiRIM — i Caphtorim.’
The first horn of a dilemma (previously stated) displays itself in the absolutely
equivocal verse of the ethnic chart itself. Our construction is, that the Caphtorim
proceeded (like the Philistines) from out of the KSAiLouKAs: but if a Lanci were
to object that every Mitsrite name, but that of the parenthetical Philistim, is preceded
by the demonstrative ATt, and were to insist that “ W-ATz-KPATzRIM ” means “ and-
aZZ-KPATZRZZes,” we should yield at once that, in the Text, the latter are sons, not
grandsons, of the MTsR&m. In mere hagiography a distinction so minute is of no importance
; but in ethnography it makes all the difference whether the KPATzR^m issued
primarily from the Egyptians, or whether they are a secondary formation from among
the KSAiLouKAs of Barbary; Gsetulians who, like their brethren the Philistines, abandoned
their birthplace, and w ent whither ? Nobody knows!
Bochart pointed out a road to Cappadocia, along which English orthodoxy follows
him as sheep do their leading-rams ^- chiefly because, having fixed the Negro Casluhim
in Colchis on the Euxine, Protestant divines consider that his brother, or his son,
“ Caphtorim,” naturally took lodgings next door. Our restoration of the KSAiLouKAs
to Barbary shatters that hypothesis, unless Cappadocia, like Colchis, can show to some
Halicarnasian a population also | * black in complexion, and wooZZy-haired.” Strabo tells
us that the Leuco-Syrians, wAZZe-skinned-Syrians, resided there. Michaelis thought
of Cyprus, which Yolney rejects; Calmet, first Crete, and afterwards Cyprus, which
second thought is favored in Kitto’s cyclopaedia by “ E. M.” Crete, however, is adopted
by the Germanic scholarship of “ J. B. R.” ; and, based upon similar sources, by that
of Munk. One regrets to disturb this happy uniformity; but, let a query or two be
propounded — after recalling that, our preceding analyses having vindicated Barbary
as the region, and Gcetulian as the race, of seven “ affiliations of the MTsRfcm,” the
eighth, our KPATzRs, whether as offshoots of Shillouhs or of Egyptians, must have been
likewise “ gentes subfusci coloris” ; speaking a dialect of Hamitic tongues ; whoso
birthplace was also Northern Africa.
1st. How, in the remote age of these ante-historical migrations, could Berber races
have got to Crete? By navigation? Not impossible, certainly; but, it is one thing
to suppose a Mr. Caphtorim tacking his frail bark, not along shore, but straight out
400 miles (against Etesian gales) to windward, to the Island of Candia; and another
to explain the embarkation of a whole tribe of KPATzRs, for aught we know, as numerous
as the Pharusii or the Philistines. Such a voyage, at such unnautical epochas, is
rather more difficult to be conceived, in archaeology, than some mistake of a copyist in
writing that name which, as KPTzR (save in the Text, versions, and rabbinical com-
mentors thereon), has never yet been localized.
2d. What vestiges are there in Crete, or in her traditions, of any such Barbaresque'
visitation ? And why, after they had landed at Candia, did the KPATzRs abandon that
splendid island en masse, and so thoroughly, that not a suspicion of their sojourn is to
be found in Cretan, in classical, or in Hamitic traditions ?
When these two questions have received a reasonable answer, we shall put our
Bd, and last interrogatory — How comes it that, after all these improbabilities, the
second voyage, from Crete to Palestine, is unrecorded ? .
It is true that three texts are quoted to identify the Philistines with Crete: — Ezek.
xxv. 16, “ I will stretch out my hand upon the Philistines, and I will cut off the
KARTZ-iwi.” Zeph. ii. 6, “ Woe unto the inhabitants of the seacoast, the nation of the
KARTZ-im I the word of IeHOuaH against you; 0 Kanaan, the land of the Philistines.”
1 Sam. xxx. 14, 16, “ We made an invasion south of the KARTZ-iw, . . . the land of the
Philistines.”
Now1, if the resemblance of KARTZl to Crete be the only reason for making those
Shillouh affiliations, called P-OLISiTE.in hieroglyphics, navigate from Barbary to Candia,
and thence to Palestine — if this be all, why the same palseographical analogy
might bring the KARTz-fcm from KhaRTz-owm, the modern city on the juncture of the